Posted by frazzman80 on 3/30/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):Good data nc...thanks for posting. At a 160 mil cap facing the best pitchers in the sim, it's hard to gauge what effect is fatigue based and what effect is Maddox/Pedro based. But it shows that even against the best of the best that marginally fatigued players can be somewhat effective. I take it that when you platooned it was to keep them out of the blue correct?

I've concluded that you shouldn't draft anywhere near 100% of "needed" PA for the DH position. Using the 4 man platoon at DH, none of the players ever got injured (even though there were times they played at less than 20%).

Do you have any data on walks? I don't think batter fatigued affects batters ability to draw a walk. Which makes sense, I guess.

But how much of that percentage was their fatigue and how much was because of the best pitchers in a $160 mil league. We can't know that. It is good to see that even a baseline stat such as walks is potentially being affected by fatigue.

Also, you mentioned that they played down into the 20s and never got injured. What does everyone think of the frequency of injuries of fatigued players. It seems to be pretty uncommon and very random regarding what percentage they occur at.

Right now, in a progressive, I have the infamous Bob Milacki '88 as my closer. with fatigue in the 70's, he's made 5 straight saves, giving up 3 hits in the 5 games. His season long WHIP is 0.90, despite pitching most of his games below 90%. At 130 games, he's already exceed his real life IP and he's on pace for about 48 IP, which beats the heck out of his 28 Real life IP.

But how much of that percentage was their fatigue and how much was because of the best pitchers in a $160 mil league. We can't know that. It is good to see that even a baseline stat such as walks is potentially being affected by fatigue.

The non-fatigued players were hitting around 75% of their normalized average and getting around 65% of their normalized BB/100PA.

But how much of that percentage was their fatigue and how much was because of the best pitchers in a $160 mil league. We can't know that. It is good to see that even a baseline stat such as walks is potentially being affected by fatigue.

The non-fatigued players were hitting around 75% of their normalized average and getting around 65% of their normalized BB/100PA.

So based on your stats posted for the fatigued players, there is very minimal difference between the 100% guys and your fatgiued players. It just doesn't make any sense to me that this is the case.

Seems to me that fatigue is a non-factor on the hitting side based on this evidence...even against the best pitching in the sim in a $160 mil league.

But how much of that percentage was their fatigue and how much was because of the best pitchers in a $160 mil league. We can't know that. It is good to see that even a baseline stat such as walks is potentially being affected by fatigue.

The non-fatigued players were hitting around 75% of their normalized average and getting around 65% of their normalized BB/100PA.

So based on your stats posted for the fatigued players, there is very minimal difference between the 100% guys and your fatgiued players. It just doesn't make any sense to me that this is the case.

Seems to me that fatigue is a non-factor on the hitting side based on this evidence...even against the best pitching in the sim in a $160 mil league.

Pitching is a non-issue. Fatigue shouldn't hit harder if the pitching is better... the better pitching should already be shutting the hitting down better...

that said, it's been my experience that hitting dominates in general at high caps (140+)...

I wasn't saying that fatigue should hit harder if the pitching is better. I was just referencing that the players stats will be different at 160 million cap facing Pedro Martinez and Greg Maddux in a league instead of facing Pedro Feliciano and Mike Maddux. Fatigue effect should be the same across the board regardless of cap. IMO, it just should be more of a penalty than what it currently is.

Pitchers fatigue differently than position players. Pitchers simply cannot throw too many pitches or in too many games without incurring injury. Doing one or the other results in poor performance rather quickly. Leaving a starter in one inning too long always results in manager being questioned. Relief pitcher going an extra inning, same thing.

Position players are very different in that they play through the grind. without occasional days off, they begin showing signs of decay. A position player at 99% is not much different than 100%. At 89%, his decay is much more noticeable. At 79%, he's obviously much worse. And so on.

We debated having the drop off faster beyond 100% but decided not to because of some of the factors at play in SLB.

Opposing owners can strategize to fatigue a team. Start a terrible mopup pitcher can lead to a high scoring game and more at-bats. Playing more games in a division with many offensive parks, same thing. So, we have the 10% padding in place but we also opted to have a slower decay in the 90 - 100% range.

Well I just played two games where my opponent put 3 scrubs in both games at C, 1B and RF and all three were at 0% fatigue for both games. All 3 were D-/D- fielders to begin with and it took 2 errors late in game #1 not to get swept here.

My expectation would be when you have a poor fielder to begin with and he's at zero percent fatigue how in the world can he get any worse? I would think he wouldn't be able to field anything and every other play (especially ground outs and have to throw to a 1B that's at 0% would result in an error).